Yesterday, I explained that after years of seeking a response from Eni, I took my case to its stakeholders, including major shareholders.
I continued to ask for the same thing:
📌 an independent investigation of the facts and documents.
In 2010, ENI finally reacted.
But not with the investigation I expected.
The company filed a lawsuit against me and the Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios (Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics) - an action I consider a SLAPP - seeking €15 million for alleged defamation and damage to reputation.
That lawsuit introduced something crucial to this story.
Eni formally presented what I consider the “2nd version” of the events leading to my dismissal.
According to its filing, investigations conducted by Eni had found no retaliation, violation of law or breach of its Code of Ethics.
Eni then maintained that my dismissal was justified by my alleged “reticent and uncooperative conduct” during confidential investigations at the Brazilian subsidiary, allegedly undermining the relationship of trust.
This matters because this was Eni’s own version presented in judicial proceedings.
And it should be compared with earlier documents.
🔹 In 2002, the Brazilian subsidiary’s CEO had presented what I consider the “1st version” of my dismissal: “an administrative and organizational restructuring”.
🔹 In 2003, before the Brazilian Labor Court, AGIP do Brasil argued that the company had the right to terminate an employment contract at any time.
🔹 In 2010, before an Italian court, a much more specific explanation emerged: my dismissal was said to be related to my alleged conduct during confidential internal investigations.
So what was the real reason for my dismissal?
And where did Eni obtain the information supporting this version?
Was it the result of an independent investigation by headquarters?
Or was it provided by the former Brazilian subsidiary?
After years of asking Eni to examine the documents, its judicial filing became another document to be examined.
I ask for something simple:
📌 compare the versions.
Compare what AGIP do Brasil stated through its CEO and before the Brazilian courts with what Eni later stated before an Italian court.
And consider one fundamental element: in my labor judgment, the judge recorded findings concerning the irregularities I reported and my conduct in relation to the Code of Ethics.
Then draw your own conclusion.
After twenty-five years, my request to Eni remains the same:
🔴 that the facts and the entire body of evidence be submitted to an independent, impartial and transparent review.
❎ Learn more:
1️⃣ E-mail CEO AGIP do Brasil (2002):
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
2️⃣ ENI lawsuit - 2010:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English
3️⃣ Judgment in my labor case against AGIP do Brasil:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
I continued to ask for the same thing:
📌 an independent investigation of the facts and documents.
In 2010, ENI finally reacted.
But not with the investigation I expected.
The company filed a lawsuit against me and the Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios (Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics) - an action I consider a SLAPP - seeking €15 million for alleged defamation and damage to reputation.
That lawsuit introduced something crucial to this story.
Eni formally presented what I consider the “2nd version” of the events leading to my dismissal.
According to its filing, investigations conducted by Eni had found no retaliation, violation of law or breach of its Code of Ethics.
Eni then maintained that my dismissal was justified by my alleged “reticent and uncooperative conduct” during confidential investigations at the Brazilian subsidiary, allegedly undermining the relationship of trust.
This matters because this was Eni’s own version presented in judicial proceedings.
And it should be compared with earlier documents.
🔹 In 2002, the Brazilian subsidiary’s CEO had presented what I consider the “1st version” of my dismissal: “an administrative and organizational restructuring”.
🔹 In 2003, before the Brazilian Labor Court, AGIP do Brasil argued that the company had the right to terminate an employment contract at any time.
🔹 In 2010, before an Italian court, a much more specific explanation emerged: my dismissal was said to be related to my alleged conduct during confidential internal investigations.
So what was the real reason for my dismissal?
And where did Eni obtain the information supporting this version?
Was it the result of an independent investigation by headquarters?
Or was it provided by the former Brazilian subsidiary?
After years of asking Eni to examine the documents, its judicial filing became another document to be examined.
I ask for something simple:
📌 compare the versions.
Compare what AGIP do Brasil stated through its CEO and before the Brazilian courts with what Eni later stated before an Italian court.
And consider one fundamental element: in my labor judgment, the judge recorded findings concerning the irregularities I reported and my conduct in relation to the Code of Ethics.
Then draw your own conclusion.
After twenty-five years, my request to Eni remains the same:
🔴 that the facts and the entire body of evidence be submitted to an independent, impartial and transparent review.
❎ Learn more:
1️⃣ E-mail CEO AGIP do Brasil (2002):
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
2️⃣ ENI lawsuit - 2010:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English
3️⃣ Judgment in my labor case against AGIP do Brasil:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
No comments:
Post a Comment